National Defence Committee on June 13th, 2006

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

You indicated that poppy production was in the purview of the Taliban, but are not other warlords participating in poppy production as well? My understanding is that it's not simply the Taliban who are participating. Some people from the side of the Karzai government, in fact, are participating in poppy production as well.

I guess that leads to my question, which is whether either of you can inform the committee about the support of the average--if there is such a thing as average--citizen of Afghanistan now for the Karzai government. My understanding is that support is starting to slip. I think that's very worrying in terms of the future in Afghanistan. I wondered if you could comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

It will have to be a brief comment from one of you, please.

[Marc André Boivin]

There were recently major riots in Kabul following a car accident involving U.S. troops. I think that says a lot about the atmosphere of what's happening in Afghanistan. During my presentation, I insisted on saying “extremist elements”, but there are not only extremist elements; there are also opportunistic elements. The whole Karzai government machine has been set up to try to include some people who used to be, or at least were thought to be, war criminals and profiteers of different sorts--

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Except the Taliban.

[Marc André Boivin]

Except the Taliban. But some of the Taliban have actually joined the Karzai government because there were amnesty offers made. A lot of people in the south, who are officials in villages now, are former Taliban members who were not involved in the worst excesses of the regime. There is a very difficult situation on the ground, and there is no easy answer on that account.

The UNDP program always includes accountability. Along with drug eradication, there is also accountability for the government, to answer some of your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Good. Thank you.

Mr. Hawn, go ahead, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for being here.

I'd like to go back to the assessment of progress or lack thereof, and so on. You do get different assessments from people. I assume you have been on the ground there. I have not. I've talked to a number of people who have been on the ground. The assessments by people who look at it from here are different from those by people who have actually been there. I refer to some people, including the Chief of the Defence Staff, who feel that we are making significant progress on the ground.

We talk about the mission focus being virtually all military and not very much reconstruction and so on. I'm wondering how much of the mission focus presented to the Canadian public is a matter of the media focus on that part of the mission.

[Justin Massie]

I will go first, but I should point out that I have not been out in the field in Afghanistan; I can, however, talk about media coverage.

To my mind, it is perfectly understandable that there is a lot of media coverage of combat operations in Canada. Combat operations are not everyday occurrences and, therefore, I cannot blame the media for focusing on them. However, I do deplore the fact that when Canada's contribution is discussed in the political arena, the emphasis is on reconstruction. It is important to call the situation how it really is. At the moment, media coverage by independent networks and officially sanctioned political information are equally ambiguous.

[Marc André Boivin]

As far as the improvement on the ground is concerned, I think that you'll find very few people today--and I've spoken to a number of people who've just come back from Afghanistan--who will say to you that the situation is improving. The types of riots in Kabul in the year 2006 have not been seen since 2001. The signs are there. There was an article in The New York Times just last Sunday, which mentioned just this, that the situation on the ground was very difficult now.

Should that prevent Canada from continuing with this commitment? I do not agree with that. I think we've taken the right approach, generally speaking. And I think that the extension of ISAF to the south is a good thing. It will probably make matters better. But is the situation improving today, in 2006? I don't think so. I must say I don't agree.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

The CDS disagreed, but that's okay.

We talked about the ultimate aim being peace in Afghanistan, and obviously what everybody wants is a peaceful, stable country that can survive on its own. How do you define that? A lot of people have said, “Well, what's our exit plan? When are we leaving? Tell me when.” My personal view is that you can't define a date. You have to define a state.

How would you define the state of peace in Afghanistan that would allow us and our allies to start withdrawing?

[Justin Massie]

The international community has no collective extract strategy in mind. We cannot leave until the term “Failed State” no longer applies to Afghanistan; we cannot leave until the situation has been redressed.

The question of an extract strategy would probably be less of an issue for the Canadian Forces, given that Canada's contribution depends on its capacity. We cannot do everything. Securing and assuming control of Kandahar could be an easier undertaking for Canada than ensuring Afghanistan's overall development. It is an achievable objective. From that point of view, if I am not mistaken, assuming control of ISAF in the region, and increasing the number of Dutch and British troops, constitute progress.

[Marc André Boivin]

From our different experiences in the 1990s, Justin mentioned that peacekeeping in general has evolved and that we've come to understand that there are three main actors in any peacekeeping operations. There are military, civilians, and police.

We've seen conflicts in Bosnia, in Africa, and it usually takes about 10 years or so. If my memory serves me right, Hillier himself, a former commander of ISAF, said that we were looking at a horizon of 10 years.

Now, what does that mean in practice? When you come in you usually have a situation of internal war that is very hot and very intense, and the military takes most of the importance, the biggest part. As the situation evolves and you have lesser and lesser attacks...and what do I mean by lesser attacks? As is the situation now in Kandahar, if you have attacks on outposts by hundreds of armed fighters, that means you're pretty much fighting a strong enemy in Afghanistan. If the violence goes all the way down to occasional suicidal attacks, occasional targeted assassinations, I think you can generally say, okay, the violence is going down here, the enemy is no longer able to organize or foster units of such large magnitudes as we have seen recently.

As the process evolves, the military takes most of the responsibilities at first, then the police, because usually these civil wars entail criminality problems, as we've seen with the drug problem in Afghanistan and what that entails. And eventually you get to the civilians having the bigger say in everything, and you switch to development strategies.

Now, this is the exit strategy, but if Canada is serious about getting involved in Afghanistan, it is there for the long term.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I would like to follow up on that. The Taliban-like elements are always going to be there in Afghanistan, forever. Can we ever ensure lasting peace without at least getting to the stage where we have eliminated them to the point where the Afghan army and the Afghan police can then take over that continuing job? It's going to be a continuing job for as long as that country exists. Can we ever get to that point without eliminating them--making that transition to the Afghan police and army?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

A short response, please.

[Justin Massie]

I think it's possible, but the point is to win the hearts of the Afghan population rather than eliminate the Taliban, which is impossible, all the more so because they are motivated by hate.

If the local population rejects the actions of the Taliban, and if the Taliban, generally speaking, do not receive the support of the people, therefore local insurgents cannot hide amongst the people, and any actions carried out by the Taliban would be characterized as isolated events. Once that is the case, the Afghan army and police force will be able to take over that aspect of the work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I'm sorry, but you'll have to get back to that.

We're going to start the second round. For five minutes each, the order of speaking is from the official opposition to the government, to the Bloc, to the government, to the official opposition, to the government, to the official opposition, in that order. Get yourselves ready for a question.

Mr. McGuire, you're starting. You have five minutes, please.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for your very interesting presentations here today.

Both we and the press continue to ask the Minister of National Defence if we are at war. Is Canada at war? I'd like to know your answer to that. Are we actually? Is Canada in a state of combat, of war, in Afghanistan?

What would happen if not just Canada left, but the international forces left as well, before this war is over, before the job is done? When we committed ourselves to the First World War or Second World War or the Korean War, I don't think we put a time limit on it; we stayed there until it was over. There were peace negotiations at the end.

I'd just like to know your opinion. Is this an actual war in the traditional sense, and what would happen if the international forces left before this particular problem was settled?

[Marc André Boivin]

That's a tough one.

I don't really like having it that this is peace while this is war, with a clear line between the two. It's a continuum; at various points along it, you're rather more at war or rather more at peace.

Is Canada at war on the scale of what it was in Korea? I don't think so, but there are definitely aspects of what's going on in Afghanistan that could be considered war.

Pakistan has played a critical and very important role in much of the trouble of the last few decades. I don't believe Afghanistan will be at war with itself, with Pakistan, or with its neighbours forever. I think we can come to terms, but it's a very difficult, very complex situation.

Is Canada at war globally? No, but we sure as hell are close to it on the continuum.

If Canada leaves, what happens? I don't believe the Afghan government today can stand on its own feet. Here is just one number to fathom this reality: about 58% of the Government of Afghanistan's budget is coming from foreign donors. If you cut 58% of your income, cut your foreign troops, and so on, Afghanistan is going to fall back into civil war. In the long term there are definitely going to be problems that will be exported to the region and possibly to the entire world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

There are a couple of minutes left, Joe.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Are you aware of the attitude of the British in this particular international force in Afghanistan? We know they're in Iraq, but they are also committed to the international force in Afghanistan. What is the debate in Britain over the commitment to their forces? I think they know what happens when you don't confront tyranny early enough. It can really spin out of control, and they have experienced two world wars because of that--particularly the Second World War.

What is their attitude? What is the attitude of the British people to their involvement in Afghanistan?

[Marc André Boivin]

I know the attitude of the British military. I think General Richards pretty much said what was at stake for them.

The British people, of course, suffered devastating attacks not so long ago, but I would be very careful comparing what's happening in Afghanistan to the Second World War. It's not that simple. Terrorists are not states, and it's very important to make a difference. Terrorists use terror--

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Do they control Afghanistan?

[Marc André Boivin]

Terrorists do not control Afghanistan as of today.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

The Taliban control Afghanistan. Would they be considered non-terrorists?

[Marc André Boivin]

The Taliban do not control Afghanistan.